TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Service Station" (ASS) during the period July 2001 to March 2006 without following statutory formalities including payment of Service Tax due. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL) had a tie up with Non Banking Finance Companies and Insurance Companies for providing respectively loans and vehicle insurance to buyers of Maruti vehicles. They received commission for promoting the Insurance Auxiliary Services (IAS) and Banking And Financial Services (BAFS) rendered by the insurance companies and NBFCs respectively. The appellants received a part of the commission received by MUL for promoting insurance auxiliary services as well as rendering business auxiliary services. AMPL did not pay Service tax on ASS in respect of free services provided to Maruti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear period finding that no case of suppression of facts etc. was made out against the assessee to invoke larger period of limitation. In taking this view, he followed the Apex Court's decision in the case of M/s. Nizam Sugar Factory as reported in 2008 (9) S.T.R. 314 (S.C.) = 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.). The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the assessee was not liable to pay interest on the demand confirmed and was not liable to penalty as the assessee had discharged its tax liability prior to issue of show cause notice. 2. The Revenue is in appeal seeking to restore the demand of interest confirmed by the original authority. The appeal also seeks to impose penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is arg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ratio of these judgments clearly applied to cases of evasion of service tax. It was settled that when Service tax was found due from a person for any past period, arrears could be recovered along with applicable interest. Provisions of Section 75 of the Act enabled recovery of interest in such cases. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in the instant case the Commissioner had found that larger period of limitation could not be invoked. No suppression of facts could be alleged against the assessee. Despite obtaining all the relevant information as early as in October 2004, a show cause notice was issued only in June 2006. The Commissioner had rightly reduced the demand as applicable to the longer period. In the circ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Correspondence between Range Superintendent and the appellants subsequent to audit did not result in issue of show cause notices. The Preventive Branch took up the investigation in August 2005 and a show cause notice was issued only in June 2006 demanding evaded duty up to March 2006. From the worksheet attached to the Audit report and its para 1, 2 and 3 dated 16-12-2004 it is clear that department was fully aware of the nature of evasion and values and taxes involved and was in a position to issue notices for period between July 2001 and June 2004. Yet the notice was issued only in June 2006 by extending investigation and covering the period up to March 2006. I therefore find that substantial part of demand relating to extended period is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee had justifiably held the bona fide belief that no Service tax was payable on the ASS on the value of free services rendered to customers of Maruti vehicles for the reason that the said amounts had formed part of the value of the vehicle and had suffered excise duty, as submitted by the ld. Counsel. As regards the BAS involved, I find that dispute is pending before various authorities in the country for decision even today. In the circumstances, I find that the Revenue has not made a case for imposition of penalty on the respondents under Section 76 or 78 on the charge of AMPL evading Service Tax under this head. 4.3 The consistent case of the assessee has been that the impugned BAS is not taxable. The assessee did not ren....